Slashdot Mirror
RIAA: We Won't Pursue Mandated DRM Technologies
tekman writes "A New York Times article details an agreement between the RIAA and various hardware and software companies in which the RIAA has agreed to avoid seeking legislation that would mandate technologies in computers and other home electronics to restrict 'unauthorized' copying. The most interesting thing about this is the absence of the MPAA."
Well thank god for that, now we just need to hope we will still be able to buy non-palladium computers in a few years time.
"So stop hacking us, damnit!"
(Score:-1, Wrong)
...entirely from 12AX7 tubes and individual capacitors, resistors, etc.
"...the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary..."
I don't like this at all. I doubt we'll be getting fair use back anytime soon. In fact, I bet this compromise was just a way for the RIAA to get rid of its opposition in removing it.
GL
Wow... funny in the same day.
this
And now this!
If indeed they do have access to a lot of P2P networks, this would go along with MANY peoples comments about them not needing DRM anymore.
Fishy?
I hope not.
Fundamentalism stops a thinking mind.
I recieved an iPod for Christmas and I'd kinda like to keep it....
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
Does anyone else find the statment "details an agreement between the RIAA and various hardware and software companies in which the RIAA has agreed to avoid seeking legislation a little uncomfortable?
the idea, that, two multi-national business organizations (comp. ind. / riaa) have basically made an agreement to A) not "buy" some legislation from their corrupt governmnet and B) further collude in some way to determine the future of the industry.. i thought these people were supposed to be COMPETING???
how f'ing obvious can this be...
Music and Computer Companies Agree on Antipiracy Plan
By AMY HARMON
he big record companies said today that they would not seek government intervention to prevent digital piracy, in a compromise with technology companies that may hurt the efforts of the motion picture industry to win support for its own antipiracy plans.
The recording industry and two trade groups representing computer makers and software companies said they had arrived at several basic principles of an agreement that would help ease the tensions between their industries. They said they planned to convene a meeting of senior executives to discuss technical solutions to combat the illegal copying of digital material.
"This agreement says that those who seek to put the burden of piracy on the technology are simply missing the point," said Robert Holleyman, president of the Business Software Alliance, whose members include Microsoft, Apple Computer and Adobe Systems "Technology can be part of the solution, but it is not the entire solution."
As part of the agreement, the Recording Industry Association of America said it would oppose legislation that would require computers and consumer electronics devices to be designed to restrict unauthorized copying of audio and video material. Technology executives have hotly opposed such measures, which they argue would slow innovation, add costs to their devices and do little to stop piracy.
"We think businesses are capable of meeting these challenges," said Hillary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association, at a news conference in Washington. "Our industries need to work together for the consumer to benefit and for our respective businesses to grow."
In turn, the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary.
Several consumer groups and some technology companies, including Intel and Gateway, have supported legislation proposed by Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, that seeks to clarify the rights of copyright users in a digital age.
"As a matter of first order, we believe the marketplace should address these issues," said Ken Kay, executive director of the Computer Systems Policy Project, whose group represents Intel, as well as Dell Computer Hewlett-Packard and others.
Many consumer electronics companies did not join the agreement. They contend legislation like Rep. Boucher's is necessary to ensure that consumers can make fair use of digital copyrighted material even when it is locked up to prevent illegal copying.
The recording industry's agreement with the computer trade groups marks a departure from its longtime alliance with the motion picture industry on the antipiracy front and underscores their divergent concerns. The music industry may already have taken the hardest hit from digital piracy that it will have to face, as it begins to experiment with technological copy-protection on compact discs.
But the motion picture industry is worried that digital television broadcasts and movies copied off of DVD's will soon be traded over the Internet in the same high volumes as music is currently. Hollywood movie and television studios view federal intervention as a key element in avoiding the same fate as the recording industry.
Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said his organization still believed that "no reasonable alternative course of action should be eliminated from consideration."
"We are not prepared to abandon the option of seeking technical protection measures via the Congress or appropriate regulatory agency, when necessary," Mr. Valenti, said in a statement. "Designing ways to protect valuable creative works is very much in the long-term best interests of consumers and indispensable to the nourishment of our nation's economy."
Since the recording industry had never been a strong supporter of legislation that would mandate technical solutions to digital piracy, industry analysts said Ms. Rosen appeared to have conceded little that would have a far-reaching effect on the companies she represents.
But the move may make it harder for Mr. Valenti's group to achieve its aims.
"It has a great deal of symbolic value," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit group that has opposed legislative mandates on technology. "Public policy makers are going to ask why isn't the recording industry pushing for mandates when they're the ones getting killed?"
There is no way they'd be able to pass legislation requiring computers to have DRM. They'd have to prove computers have no other use besides playing media. Not even the RIAA can bribe enough politicians for that.
They're just trying to spin the fact that they can't force that kind of legislation to make it sound like they're being the good guys.
What difference does it make to them if there's that kind of legislation anyway? They're doing everything they can to restrict their CDs to DRM players as it is.
Jason
ProfQuotes
No mandated restrictions in computers
or other electronics, moreover;
does it seem to anyone else
that hell is freezing over?
Don't give me none of this "nature theme" business.
... what sparked this change of heart. Is the RIAA afraid of Intel and other big companies entering the legal battle? Do they finally realize that they could make money by making internet specific products with these people as allies? Have they figured out that by getting the laws passed, the consumers out there would be made aware of the RIAA's attempts to mess with their rights?
I can't help but think there's a juicy story behind this decision.
Seems like the RIAA and MPAA are thinking clearly and the tech industry isn't. Since the MPAA isn't party to this agreement, they can still campaign for enforced DRM. The tech industry promised the RIAA they wouldn't try to expand rights for consumers (translation: enforce current rights), so they probably won't campaign against the MPAA. The RIAA loses nothing since the MPAA will still do their lobbying, which the tech industry won't oppose them.
That part is great, so is the part about the technology companies (See Dell, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, etc) lobbying congress to NOT mandate DRM technology.
t m
The downside is that the tech companies have also agreed to a self-imposed DRM mandate, and will ALSO drop lobbying for greater consumer rights. From http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/news/4946117.h
"In exchange, the tech companies agreed that government shouldn't alter laws to allow consumers to bypass copyright protection measures to make personal copies of DVDs and other digital works."
Two steps forward, two steps back IMHO.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
keyword: legislation. They would rather force us to use DRM invented by them or microsoft, instead of something that might be out of their hands.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Their idiotic hurrahs, I'd like to point out how sinister this actually is.
The only literal thing that has happened, is that they promise not to push for laws that insist on hardware DRM. The manufacturers are of course free to implement it on their own.
Which is the only possible explanation as to why the RIAA would cave like they have.
This isn't a good thing, by far.
Keep your skirt on. The other half of this story is that the hardware manufacturers have agreed to make DRM hardware. Get ready to stock up on the last remaining DRM-free hardware in the near future.
I don't believe a word of this. The legislation being considered for forcing DRM is a result of the RIAA lobbying. So it's 'their' legislation, they're just trying to quash any rumors that may have gotten out of the techy community, so that the average person who's heard the negative hears them say the opposite, shrugs, and stops caring.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Yeah, that's what it seems like...but where's the MPAA? I'm thinking they've gone around for a flanking maneuver. Sneaky bastards...
Although, it'd be nice if they just had a simple difference in opinion. If we could get the RIAA and MPAA to fight each other, that'd solve our problems. Doubt it would ever happen though.
---
Open Source Shirts
"aggressively pursue digital pirates". This of course was a PR disaster so this story changed 30 minutes ago! The NY Times article I sent Slashdot has been deleted. That's it, I'm fsking prinitng everything that shows up the NYTimes with some new outrage. This is /not/ good news, all it means is that Hollywood and Silicon Valley have reached a dirty deal to turn your computer into a fink.
Glin
If they had, it would have read like this... from the glass-is-half-empty dept.: Your Rights Online: Electronics makers to lobby against user rights That's the other half of the quid-pro-quo here. The RIAA is willing let go the idea of government mandated DRM, so long as the electronics companies promise to lobby against any pro-user expansions of the definiton of "fair use" or a guarenteed right to backups. Basically, the RIAA would rather have things stay the way they are, then to play the game in Congress. If the RIAA tried to argue for more than they have now, there's a risk that the debate might turn around and result in pro-consumer copyright law changes, and they'd rather talk people out of trying than taking that risk.
Seems to me the industries said "If the Tech Industry stops supporting laws that will ensure fair use rights are protected the RIAA will stop supporting laws that require anti-copying controls in all electronic equipment"
We got hosed tommy, we got hosed.
The idea of Senator Hollings bill was absolutely ludicrous and it wouldn't have been difficult to defeat. Boucher's bill, on the other hand seems to make sense and had a good chance of winning.
I ask, is this a fair trade?
Here's some of the article for those of you too cool to read it yourselves.
As part of the agreement, the Recording Industry Association of America said it would oppose legislation that would require computers and consumer electronics devices to be designed to restrict unauthorized copying of audio and video material. Technology executives have hotly opposed such measures, which they argue would slow innovation, add costs to their devices and do little to stop piracy.
"We think businesses are capable of meeting these challenges," said Hillary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association, at a news conference in Washington. "Our industries need to work together for the consumer to benefit and for our respective businesses to grow."
In turn, the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary.
Several consumer groups and some technology companies, including Intel and Gateway, have supported legislation proposed by Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, that seeks to clarify the rights of copyright users in a digital age.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
They may not purse legally mandated DRM, but you can bet that they will pursue de-facto DRM through hardware, BIOS and operating system vendors.
What the RIAA is trying to do by keeping DRM mandates out of the hands of legislators is avoid a situation where they are forced to give consumers MORE rights. Fritz Hollings doesn't have as much influence as he used to now that Republicans have control of the Senate again. Someone who 'gets it', like Rick Boucher, could make them very unhappy. They'd rather not fight a battle in Congress if there's a good chance that they wouldn't win.
Does anyone else feel that this is just a non aggression treaty, like the one between Germany and Russia, and both sides are holding off the government until they come up with the killer technology to screw the other side, and us as well?
Maybe it's just me.
"These technology companies, including Microsoft Corp., IBM, Intel Corp. and Dell Computer Corp., also pledged support Tuesday for aggressive enforcement against digital pirates." http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Down loading-Music.html
"Digital Pirates" - aka America
jesus, im not even going to read that, put some fucking formating in there
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
When the Home Recordings Act was passed, it specifically made sure fair use rights were protected. The RIAA certainly didn't go to the same extremes as the MPAA did when the latter got the DMCA passed into law primarily to support its DVD system.
The RIAA has also always been on the right side of the free speech debate. Hilary Rosen has made numerous representations which, so far, have staved off any credible censorship of music. Beyond a token, meaningless, sop to critics of the "Parental Advisory" label, which has no meaning in law or practice - record shops can and do freely sell such content without checking ages - there's not even a rating system. That there isn't is a testiment to Rosen's abilities to keep music free and open.
Ironically, the worst law the RIAA has proposed to protect its members copyrights is also the most libertarian - a proposal that the RIAA be able to hack into computers it believes are being used by those who violate copyright laws. Clearly, it's a dumb law, but it's symptomatic of an industry that really doesn't want people imprisoned for illegally redistributing its stuff. It's a world away from certain software companies and the movie industry who feel that imprisoning someone who merely makes it easier to copy something is just and proper.
Give the group a break, people. It's made some mistakes. It's made presumptions about Napster, etc, users that it shouldn't have and proposed some pretty whacko solutions, but it isn't evil. The RIAA, on this subject, is seriously misguided. It deserves better than the treatment it gets.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
For the technology industry's end of this bargain with the devil, the participants agreed to stop lobbying for a bill protecting consumers' fair use rights to digital media.
The technology companies were the major lobbying force behind the bills to protect consumers' fair use rights. If these corporations aren't going to stand up for our rights, then we'd better do so for ourselves. And the time to do so is right now, before coming DRM technologies erode the rights we have left.
Can you think of a better excuse to write your Congresscritter and tell him or her to support the Boucher bill? If our fair use rights aren't explicitly protected, then they'll slowly disappear as future generations of technology will have more and more restrictions on how you can use the content you paid for. Write to your Congressperson now and let them know you are concerned about this issue!
"As more people steal music (or in their opinions stop paying outrageous prices for music without any money going to the artists), their power will diminish."
If people are using P2P to steal music as you put it, then how come there aren't very many games there? It's not the file size, DVD's get traded way more than games do. So what's the deal?
I'll tell you what the deal is, people aren't opposed to spending money. With games, they can download the demo and try it out legitimately. There's no way to do that with music or videos. Once you open that CD or DVD, it's yours. Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
Call it 'thievery' if you like, I call it ensuring customer satisfaction. Don't believe me? Then explain to me why the RIAA was at their peak while Napster was?
I've done quite a bit of searching for MP3s in my time, and what I have found (Note: this is not a scientific analysis, just an observation) that few people had complete albums. Just about everybody had one or two songs from a given album. That pattern is suggestive of people hunting around for new music to try, not somebody out to save a few bucks.
The funny thing is that all this happened at absolutely 0 cost to the RIAA. Free advertising. They should have looked the other way. Go fig.
Actually, they're doing what Congress told them to do. As you may remember, a couple of years ago during the height of the Napster craze, Congress looked at forcing the music industry to provide music over the Internet. Some of the guidance from Congress, was "industry fix this problem or we'll fix it for you." Anyone who has experienced Congress' help, would rather avoid it in the future. So it is not surprising that these two groups got together. In fact, it is a good thing. Do YOU really want Congress deciding this issue.
Here is a story that explains a little more behind the MPAA's decision:
MPAA Info
"I've done quite a bit of searching for MP3s in my time, and what I have found (Note: this is not a scientific analysis, just an observation) that few people had complete albums. Just about everybody had one or two songs from a given album. That pattern is suggestive of people hunting around for new music to try, not somebody out to save a few bucks."
Lots of people are probably downloading songs because they have a huge collection of CDs and would rather d/l what's already ripped than try to go through each CD and encode it all.
The more reasons I think about why somebody would download an MP3, the less I think the reason is to save money. It takes quite a few albums to make up the cost of an iPod.
"Derp de derp."
RIAA doesn't need goverment mandated DRM because they can mandate it themselves together with computer manufacturers.
You can be sure that next audiodisc format will have VERY strong enpcryption and there won't be any players/soundcards which will provide standard SPDIF out while playing a new format.
"Keep your skirt on. The other half of this story is that the hardware manufacturers have agreed to make DRM hardware. Get ready to stock up on the last remaining DRM-free hardware in the near future."
Dell is going to have a real hard time selling me a new laptop in a couple of years if my old one can do more.
Instead of writing a post complaining that two groups are colluding to not pay off politicians and subverting your fair use rights, go join the EFF and ask them to push this bill!
We do not need corporate help to get our rights set down in law! The EFF is working to be our voice! Take the time to donate some money and get this done!
I understand why people are upset about DRM, you should be able to mp3 your own songs, yadda yadda yadda.
But like, c'mon, piracy is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* petty thieves have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People spend time and money to create software, music, movies, etc., and people go and steal it because they believe
a) they are entitled to it
b) they believe industy X is overcharging
Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled to a product. Argument (b) is also stupid. There is plenty of free music and software available on the internet that isn't illegal. If you're truly upset about overcharging, then use free software. The fact that you steal (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the companies you are stealing from that they have a product you want, and the fact that you won't pay them for it forces them to clamp down on it.
Furthermore, why won't any of the thieves that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go to Best Buy and steal a copy of Photoshop or the new Eminem CD?
evil adrian
The NYT articles leaves out some important facts.
From this story: "Under the agreement, technology lobbyists will argue that record companies should be permitted to use hacker-style tactics to disrupt Internet downloads of pirated music and movies."
Great.
Will you idiots wake the fuck up! This is what the BSA has agreed to do for the RIAA:
1) Endorse hacking of computers! Yes the BSA (Microsoft, Apple, DELL, HP and Intel) will lobby congress to allow the RIAA to hack P2P networks, so long as the RIAA is "careful" about it!
2) BSA will "aggressively pursue digital pirates" on behalf of the RIAA. Now you've got Hollywood AND Silicon Valley working together to rifle through your shit!
3) The BSA will help the RIAA defeat any attempt to elucidate the fair use rights of consumers. That's right Hollywood and Silicon Valley will work together to make sure your rights are never spelled out by congress.
All of this in exchange for letting a law drop that was going to be voted down anyway! The RIAA just fucked Silicon Valley, your fair use rights and computer users everywhere in one swoop! This is GREAT news! Idiots.
This deal is a catastrophe and represents a complete cluster-fucking of America by corporate shills; you will pay dearly for it in lost freedom.
This is the worst job I've ever seen Slashdot's editors do. God damn you for spinning this as a win.
Glin
It seems the RIAA and/or BSA have learned to troll Slashdot, since the headline is grievously misleading.
This, "landmark agreement," simply states that BSA and RIAA will lobby against all new legislation on digital policy. Under this "balanced" approach, not only would Senator "Fritz" Hollings' (D-S.C.) bill for mandatory Digital Restrictions Mechanisms get the kibosh, so also would Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) initiative to make exercising Fair Use rights an affirmative defense against DMCA prosecution.
The most telling quote was from BSA head Robert Holleyman, who described the DMCA as, "generally working as it was intended."
This "compromise" measure is nothing of the sort, as it merely seeks to affirm the status quo, doing nothing to redress the harm done and still being done by the DMCA and the lesser-known NET Act.
I also note -- with piqued curiosity -- how the Associated Press report on this story has had significant changes made in the last few hours. The first version I read contained Holleyman's telling DMCA quote and mentioned the effects on Lofgren's and Boucher's bills. The latest version has a considerably different slant, soft-pedaling the announcement and eliding Holleyman's quote.
So the newswires aren't our friends, either.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I forget, which side represented the consumer? Was it the RIAA or Microsoft?
It's a PR ploy. Legislation is only one route to their goal. It picked up too much flack, so I suppose they just readjusted their deals with tech vendors.
The article says:
"They said they planned to convene a meeting of senior executives to discuss technical solutions to combat the illegal copying of digital material."
i.e. they took the process underground.
This is the way decisions get made. If you want music to be free, don't give your money to organizations that make decisions like this.
So explain to me how your old laptop can do more than a DRM enabled laptop, when the old one can't play DRM files at all. Or do you plan on obtaining a cracked viewer to use these files.
Vote for Pedro
From the RIAA's perspective, there's no point in having the govt. force DRM down the computer industries throat. They make their money selling cds. If DRM is around, they may offer music for sale on the internet, which may or may not increase their bottom line. If DRM doesn't catch on, they'll still keep selling cds, and stick to the "old business model", ignoring the internet. It's not worth their lobbying money to fight this battle, especially when the MPAA has a much bigger interest in the issue anyway.
Vote for Pedro
I'm pretty sure the words "this week" got left off of that title.
"So explain to me how your old laptop can do more than a DRM enabled laptop, when the old one can't play DRM files at all. Or do you plan on obtaining a cracked viewer to use these files."
I'd answer that if I understood what you were really getting at.
We don't need to fight for mandated DRM. It's already on order.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
This should have +5 insigtful AND +5 funny :)
Because the Internet is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. Right Jack?
I don't know why anyone bothers to listen to this dipshit when he says something about the implications of some technology. Few prognostications have ever been as utterly wrong as his was. And that he insists that he's been proven correct is just stupid.
Dyolf Knip
So explain to me how your old laptop can do more than a DRM enabled laptop
Some of the proposed DRM schemes effectively turn a computer into something that can do nothing but play DRM files. In essence, it becomes a glorified Xbox.
when the old one can't play DRM files at all.
Who even needs to play DRM files?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Or do you plan on obtaining a cracked viewer to use these files.
If necessary, yes. And it will probably make me a criminal to be accessing files that I own.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"What if your laptop's hard drive dies, and none of the hard drives available at your local computer store are compatible with your laptop? "
Not likely to happen soon. Unless you're referring to hardware-enabled DRM, in that case problems might arise.
That's not really a discussion we can have until companies start launching these things.
haiku
/haiku
Collude agreement,
Share the pie, remainder one,
Steal rights, pad profits.
This space for rent.
NPR reported this on my way to work this morning. The gist of the conversation is "Hey we won't demand hardware copy protection if you hardware makers help us strip or block every bit of consumer rights legislation that comes through". The goal is that RIAA stops lobbying for mandatory hardware controls and the hardware groups join to lobby against any possible consumer bill of rights. Great "trade".
I hope we can buy a few senators back some day and have groups like the RIAA permanently banned from doing that special kind of business they do. They should have just stuck to certifying gold records.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
They bought the chip makers. Who needs the US congress, when you got the whole world?
Dell, Intel, HP, MS, Oracle, IBM, Adobe, to name a few,
there are lists in the articles,
but basically if they sell computers or software and are worth more than a billion its a safe bet they are part of this agreement (although I dunno if AMD is in on it)
Now that the big processor producers already have announced plans to add in DRM, they don't NEED to push it as mandatory. It'll fill in all by itself.
Banaaaana!
Look at the sides here and read between the lines: In the left corner, the BSA: the evil organisation which uses tactics that remind me of mafia racketeering to extract mounds of cash from honest people by forcing them to either pay lots for an audit which could, if errors are found, force them to pay even more, or pay even more upfront to save themselves? The organisation who act like they were the police and believe everyone out there is out to steal from their members? In the right side, the RIAA: the evil organisation who'd like nothing less than to see the advent of big brother, with all of us forced to listen to whatever they want us to listen, and to pay for every second we're listening to it. I can imagine all of us chained to a "music meter" that calculates exactly what we owe them, and then a zoom to the RIAA headquarters, with artists chained to their desk to produce "music", virtually slaves to the most powerful organisation in the world, and I know that's Rosen's dream and everyone else's nightmare. In the middle, as referees: the Lawyers, who stand to profit anyway this goes. The result: Evil wins, whatever happens. Whichever side gets the best of the argument won't much matter in the end. But I suspect it will go like that: The computer industry will spontaneously implement DRM methods across the board, just like the RIAA said, but by themselves without any rules or restrictions set by the government, and fair use will die. This profits the BSA, because it is also related to the patenting of code, and the destruction of open source. We'll be doubly screwed. I'd be curious to know exactly which companies refused to get in this. I suspect Apple was one of them. Steve Jobs, you're our only hope!
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
"I'm not going to murder your wife." Thug holds gun to husband's head. "You are."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Do you know how incredibly slow a processor would have to be if it was built out of discrete parts? Also, I'd like to see you wade through the ocean of wires to try and debug it. Debugging a digital circuit on a breadboard is painful enough...
I'd just want all those tubes after the project fails.... Man, that'd be a lifetime supply of spares for all the guitar amps in Texas!!!!
notice that the RIAA wants to stop legislation that will guarantee your fair use rights despite the DMCA. Basically, RIAA will settle for the DMCA as it is, unabridged. That's not progress. That's no deal. That's a step backwards, no matter what the headline to this story reads.
Let them lobby, let the mindless congressional puppets pass any legislation they want. In response, I would love to see consumers chew up the RIAA/MPAA and spit them out like a piece of five-day-old gum. Then no law in the world will do them any good as they try to stave off bankruptcy.
Um, it sounds to me like Hollywood and Silicon Valley have not only done that but also control the news media. Please do keep close track of brief media slipups like that. After all we have ALWAYS been at war with EastAsia- it says so on the news, right? O_O
You think I'm a loon? Congress is elected and it's members will do what it takes to stay that way. It's a simple matter to convince people their rights are being infringed, given the current state of outrageous copyright laws. If the public turns its attention to this issue for long, they might just understand it - and poof, many Mikey Mouse schemes will vaporize. Publishers make their living by wooing the public. Time lays waste the plans of mice and men.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Oh yeah, that's it, Poland 1939, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact signed on August 23rd of 1939.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
And further, I believe that if any of our elected representatives keep pushing for mandatory DRM anyway, it's because it's The Right Thing To Do. And that if the RIAA keeps bankrolling these politicians, then that is also because it's The Right Thing To Do.
In other news, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil. We know this, because President Bush said so.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I should me modding, but I have to comment because I don't see a certain point here. We still need to write and bitch because we still have the DMCA on our backs. That these two sides are teaming up leaves me with a sneaky feeling. I want to think it is for the best, but it is about 4 years too late. We have asked for an agreement between parties for years. Now we have the DMCA. We need further legislation to either eliminate it or reduce its power. For the RIAA and tech side to say they will back of legislation, leave the burden squarely on the backs of the public. Support Bouchers bill!
Has anyone here used/played with one of these? What level of DRM technology do they employ? CSS like on a DVD? or something else entirely? (or none at all like a CD -- unlikely but possible.)
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Now look what the hypothetical old non-DRM machine still can do:
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!